This is a truly fascinating and engaging work. The meaning of indepence from Great Britain is much more profound that one would think on first thought. With this idea in mind, Morgan penetrates to the fundamental ideas and characters of each three men. For both Washington and Adams, I must say that he is right on target. His account of Jefferson is also good, although I cannot help but wonder why Morgan spends some much time and space castigating the man for what he views to be his short-comings. Regardless of the actual merit of his criticisms, he clearly strays rather far from the subject of the work. Nevertheless, the piece as a whole is gem.

Edmund Morgan is perhaps the most readable American colonial historian. Best known for his books on the Puritans and colonial slavery, Morgan here presents three lectures on what three founding fathers thought about independence. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson are three very complicated individuals, and no short lecture is going to completely explicate their ideas. But Morgan brings his typical verve and clarity to the subject, and speaking as a AP history teacher, I found them to be well worth my time.

I first encountered Morgan's wonderful book in a college history class (thanks, Dr. Bourdon!), but this is no dry academic tome (personally, I think that there is no reason an academic book has to be dry, anyway). The book's three essays--one each on the named presidents and their points of view on the struggle that produced this nation--are both insightful and pleasurable reading. For the casual reader, there is Morgan's gift for anecdote. His description of the personality conflict between Adams and Benjamin Franklin is hilarious, as is Adams' timeless description of the tedium of legislatures (some things really do never change!). That said, there is also serious analysis of these three men, and what each contributed, thought, and said, written with a critcal but respectful tone. It's hard to say which essay is the best, but those who despise Thomas Jefferson for hypocrisy should certainly read his section, and learn about his genuine, if tempered, idealism--a trait we could use more of in the 1990's. This is an excellent choice for anyone who wants to broaden and deepen his or her knowledge of the origins of this country.

"The Presidency of George Washington" is exactly what its title implies. It is the story of the Washington Administration. It is not a biography of George Washington, nor is it even a book which revolves totally around George Washington. It is the story of the people, issues and events which made up the administration of George Washington.

The book starts out with an introduction into the United States of 1789. The regions and interests, as well as the political alignments, which supported and opposed the adoption of the Constitution are explained in some detail. The economy, trade, finance and the neighboring powers of Spain and England all laid the background for America's experiment with its new Constitution.

The first task facing Washington was the establishment of the National Government. While reading this book we come to understand just how little guidance he had from the Constitution. Many of the practices which we take for granted derive, not from the Constitution, but from precedents established by Washington and his successors. The title of address for the President and the role of the heads of the executive departments, which were to become the cabinet, were among the first issues to be addressed. The role of the Senate in granting "advice and consent" on foreign policy matters had to be defined. An early trial occurred when President Washington appeared in the Senate to present his proposals and ask for advise and consent. After this awkward exercise, the practice was established that the executive would formulate policies and negotiate treaties, which would then presented for advice and consent.

The power of removal of executive officers also had to be refined. It was presumed by some that any officer who required Senate confirmation for appointment, also required Senate consent for removal. It was the Washington Administration which established the principle that executive officers could be removed by the President without Congressional approval. This was an issue which was to be resurrected during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Beyond organizational problems, the towering challenge facing the administration was that of finance. The debts of the Continental Congress and the states raised a myriad of issues. Should debts be paid? Should the debts be paid at par? Should payment be made to the bearer, who had often bought the bonds at a discount, or should some or all of the payment be made to the original lender? Should the national government assume the debts of the states? All of these issues had important consequences to the credit worthiness of the government. The assumption of state war debts had unequal impacts, depending on whether the individual state had serviced its debt or let it accumulate. Ultimately the Hamiltonian proposal to assume the war debt of the states and to pay the holders of the bonds was adopted, with the concession of the location of the national capitol in the South to win necessary support.

An issue which would remain controversial until the Administration of Andrew Jackson was the establishment of the Bank of the United States. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the bank was the dearth of banks in the country capable of handling federal deposits.

The domestic issues confronted by the administration introduced the spirit of party into the Administration. The differing views and personalties of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson brought contention into the administration. It was their personalties, particularly that of Hamilton, which came to be the heart of the Administration, even more than that of Washington himself.

The second term was to be dominated by foreign entanglements and a domestic insurrection. The advancement of the French Revolution and its wars with the powers of Europe brought European problems to America. The continuance or renunciation of America's treaty, made with Royalist France, was a hotly debated issue, as was the ratification of a later treaty with Britain. Acceptance of the Jay Treaty with Britain was, ultimately, decided in a reaction to alleged official corruption. In America's first encounter with Islamic Terrorism, raids against American shipping in the Mediterranean by Barbery Pirates, resulted in, again after heated debate, the establishment of the U.S. Navy.

1794 saw resistance to federal taxation on whiskey erupt into the Whiskey Rebellion. The assertion of Federal authority lead to the raising of the militia for the suppression of the rebellion. The declaration of the Rebellion and its suppression may have had more to do with Hamilton's desire to crush his political opponents and brand them as traitors than it did with any actual insurrection.

Washington's ultimate gift to the nation was his retirement and transfer of power to an elected successor at the conclusion of his second term.

This book is recommended to anyone desiring an understanding of the personalities who made up our first national administration, the challenges which confronted them, their responses to those challenges and their legacies to our country.

The general consensus is that the two greatest US presidents were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. I firmly believe that and in my opinion, Washington was the greatest. Before he became president he did something very rare in the history of the human race. After the victory in the war of independence, his stature was such that he could have been "elected" king. However, his honor was such that he had to be persuaded to run for president and then re-persuaded to run for a second term. He then thoroughly rejected any thought of a third term.
The nation that he led was still very fragile and every action by Washington or congress that was not explicit in the constitution would establish a precedent. Furthermore, the world was still a dangerous place, with the French revolution and subsequent European war creating a dangerous environment for the new nation. His actions in building the new government and keeping it out of foreign entanglements fully justify the admiration that he receives.
This book kept my attention from the first page as the early years of the new government are described. For this is a book about the Washington administration rather than Washington the man. So many legends in the annals of history were there and setting the tone for over 200 years of continuous government. You also learn of the emergence of political parties, as Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson and Adams among others vie for power and influence. Alexander Hamilton is the most interesting of these giants, as he successfully creates the financial institutions that made the country fiscally sound.
The more I read about Washington and that period of history, the more I am impressed by him. I have no idea what would have happened if he had been different, but it is a sure bet that it would have been worse. It is unfortunate that we teach our children nonsensical myths like the one about the cherry tree. The truth is so much more inspiring, and he truly deserves the accolade of "the father of his country."

Forrest McDonald is an excellent writer. He produced a wonderful full length bio of Alexander Hamilton that I recommend to anyone interested learning about our government's start and the role played by the man second only to Washington in ensuring that these United States succeeded in laying a firm foundation for self government.

This book is one of McDonald's two contributions to the Univ. of KA's "Presidency Series." It is splendid.

McDonald concisely explores the challenges presenting themselves and issues demanding attention from our new and untested government. In just under two hundred pages, the author does an excellent job of boiling down the topics to their essentials and describing how the nascent government struggled to define its role, the meaning of it's constitutional structure, the balance of factions and America's relation to warring European giants.

His book accomplishes this with brevity, clear and concise writing and in an interesting manner. Along the way are fascinating tidbits. For example, neither Washington nor the Senate knew what "advise and consent" meant regarding treaties. About to send negotiators to several indian tribes, Washington walked down to the Senate to seek their advice on instructions for his agents. As the Senate sat dumbfounded, and then finally began to debate the seven points Washington sought advice on, it became clear how impractical legislative micro management of treaty making would be. Washington turned on his heels and left in disgust when it became obvious the Senate could not give him clear and definative advice. Thereafter, it was mutually agreed that the Senate's role would revolve mainly around "consent" and come when the President presented negotiatied treaties to that body for consideration and not before the treaty making in the form of advice. And thus has it been, evermore.

This is a very good book that will inform those interested in learning how our government got up and running and how important Washington and the players around him were in charting the course for our young government.

Washington Irving's biography on Washington is by far the most detailed review on our first President from youth through his post Presidential years. Given that Mr. Irving personally met George Washington at the young age of 7, Irving's book has all the more relavence than today's revisionist historians can ever provide. However, the "old english" that Washington used in his correspondence makes for difficult comprehension. It is interesting to note that by 1850 the change to a more modern writing style by Irving presents a clearer picture of Washington's time, but it still requires an occasional re-read to fully understand Irving's point. A person with a limited interest in the Revolutionary War may be better suited to purchasing a more contemporary biography for ease of reading.

However, this book does provide such insite into the minds of Washington and those around him and it allows the reader to finally start to understand why our Founding Fathers risked all for the sake of freedom and liberty from the English. Today we take for granted rights that never existed anywhere in the 1770's and such historical works penned in the mid 1850's provides an insite that should be required reading for both liberals and conservatives. Overall, the book is long and difficult to read, but well worth the time, effort and cost.

The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.
Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.

The life of Washington should be required reading for everyone. The amount of difficulty he faced throughout his life is unimaginable to modern man. Washington had a life of privilege which is the main reason he was placed in a position of responsibility so early in life. However, in all of his campaigns he was dealing with shortages, sicknesses and other difficulties that make our own seem not so difficult.

Reading this work will provide the reader with an understanding how lucky America was to have a man of such temperament at her founding. Washington was a man of great intellect. He proved that by defeating the British on a number of occasions. He was a man of high honor which he proved when the various cabals tried to remove him from his office and he answered them with excellent performance and an absence of the acrimony so many would have used. He was a man of incomprehendable determination. The crossing of the Deleware, the winter at Valley forge and hundreds of other examples prove this. He was a man of tremendous resourcefulness as is shown by his ability to field an army when provisions were always in want for many years and at the same time attend to so many other details.

Washington Irving's work will provide the reader with an excellent understanding of all of these qualities. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Washington's life. The vast majority of this work deals with the revolution so if you are interested in the early years or the later years you will not find a great deal of detail in this particular work.

This is a very good biography of George Washington during the French and Indian War years. It is written well, enjoyable and easy to read.
One of the things I especially appreciated was the writer explaining just how George Washington became involved with the colonial goverment, so that he was ever asked to be involved in the political situation of the time. Not many books make this clear.
The book not only covers George Washington, but also hits upon the politics of the time and many other important people involved during this exciting historical period.
I am glad I read the book and I recommend it to others. This is an especially good book for those with little knowledge of George Washington's involvement with the British government and the politics of the French and Indian War.

This is by far the best biography of the early years of the life of George Washington I have ever read. Lewis gives us not only a brilliant introduction to young Colonel George Washington, but also a vivid analysis of the period of the French and Indian War, including the people, places, and circumstances of the conflict.

The book first gives a background on an adolecent Washington and his boyhood adventures as a surveyor in western Virginia. We learn how he grew up admiring the wealth and lifestyle of his aristocratic neighbors, the Fairfaxes, and how he began a long journey to emmulate them and to be a part of their privileged world. However, Washington's own ambitions pull him in other directions as he becomes deeply involved in the brewing storm of events that would culminate with the conflict with the French and Indians over posession of the Ohio Country and the Trans-Allegheny region. We follow Washington as he attempts to make a name for himself with the Governor of the Virginia colony by accepting a mission to deliver a message to the French army marching south from Lake Erie to the Forks of the Ohio River. This single event pushes Washington from the "shadows of an ordinary life" onto the stage of history. We see as Washington botches his attempt to protect the Forks from a French invasion at Fort Necessity and his anger at his own failure to not only obtain a royal commision in the British army, but to even obtain a victory in battle. Lewis details Washington's involvment in the war from Braddock's disasterous campaign against Fort Dusquene in 1755 to his ultimate anti-climactic success at the end of the long and muddy Forbes' Road in 1758, after which Washington retires from public service to return to the simple life of a farmer forever.

I also enjoyed Lewis' attention to the background of the struggle that served as the forge of experience for young G. W. Here we are exposed to the details and origins of the problems with not only the French, but particularly the Indians living in the Ohio Country and the singularly important role they played and the failure of Washington, or any other whitemen, to grasp that importance. This is evident in both Washington's and Braddock's terrible defeats in the early war years. Lewis gives us fascinating accounts of Washington's peers, his allies, enemies. These are men like Ohio Company scout Christopher Gist, The Seneca chief Tannacharison (Half-King), friend and neighbor George Fairfax, and others. In the end Washington would emerge older and experienced from a bloody conflict prepared to take on an even greater leadership role in another later fight in the not too distant future. A great book that I highly recommend.

This is an excellent example of how a historical figure can be seen in many different ways that are not really who the person was. This book gives you and idea of how the people saw George Washington during his lifetime, and then goes on to his real life story.

This is an excellent and brief account of George Washington's life. A couple of sittings will allow the reader to understand Washington the man, why he is so highly regarded, and to understand the important issues that will forever keep us debating his greatness.

The plays in the History's Project's "Character in Time: The US Presidents" series are interesting and informative and, above all, very readable. People unfamiliar with reading plays should not be put off by the format -- after a few minutes time, it seems perfectly natural to read dialogue instead of normal prose. Students, especially, will appreciate the playwright's artful distillation of the subject's ideas and philosophy, as well as the lively presentation of his character -- there's really a lot of information packed into these small volumes.

Our faith in this country's first president as a mythological icon is warmly dispelled through this entertaining account of a man whose daily angst, to the largest extent, so identifiably resembles our own. The read is quick but the remembrances will remain. This play is an excellent vehicle to combat the shallow, pedantic versions of presidential history to which most of us have been previously subjected.

First I have to say that Marilyn Nelson is a wonderful person. And I think she is one of the best poet's of her generation. Her poetry is great, and her book, _The Homeplace_ is one of those books that everyone should own. But even great poets can write mediocre poems. This collection is a series of short poems, usually a dramatic monologue of some sort, that together are supposed to make up the story of George Washington Carver's life (it includes pictures and little biographical footnotes). Pretty much the same thing she did for The Homeplace. It worked in The Homeplace, but not here. The problem isn't so much Nelson's skill as a poet (few are better than her), rather it is Carver's life. It just doesn't make good poetry, or at least not 60 poems. I understand Marilyn wants to tell us about Carver, but perhaps prose would have been a better way to go about it (that and this book seems to be marketed for young children--I don't think they can fully appreciate the nuances of Nelson's poetry or Carver's life). That said, there are several good poems in the book, "Clay" and "Cafeteria Food" being my personal favorites. Well, not every collection is going to be great (look at Frost's later books), so I eagerly await the next book from Marilyn Nelson, be it poetry, essays, or fiction.

This biography that won both a Newbery Honor and a Coretta Scott King Honor is an awe inspiring book. Nelson tells the story of George Washington Carver's life through a series of poems that act like snapshots in a photo album. She begins with a poem about Carver and his mother being stolen from their owner when they were slaves. John Bentley is sent after them but can only find baby George who he returns to the Carvers who raise him with his brother Jim. The poems go on to tell of Carver's search for education, his resourcefulness, and his spirituality. Different poems describe his artistic abilities, his studies of botany, his appreciation for all of nature, his artistic nature, and his dedication to his students and all of his people. The book traces his life from its beginning in slavery to his years in college and as an instructor at the Tuskegee Institute. Nelson's poems describe the life of an amazing genius who is too often overlooked as simply the inventor of peanut butter. Each poem acts as frame in the film of Carver's life. The poems work together to tell the story, but each poem can also stand on its own as a photograph of a moment from an amazing life. The historical footnotes in the text help to clarify the poems and the photographs of Carver, his family and friends, his creations, etc. help to create a better understanding of this incredible man.

i really enjoyed this collection of poems by george washington carver! i have plans to be a teacher when i finish college and i think that i will use this book in my teaching plans! the poetry is basic at times so that most any student will be able to understand and yet it has a deepness that will require some thought on behalf of the students. i recommend this book to anyone who enjoys poetry, history, or teaching. i have put this book on my wish list with hope that someone will but it as a christmas gift for me. that is how much i liked carver's work. kudos to mrs. nelson for putting the collection together and getting it published. i can clearly see why carver a life in poems won the newberry award.

Although I enjoyed this book, I was a little disappointed by how limited the information was on the aircraft carrier and its layout. The book is heavily padded with extraneous verbiage and much of it reads like military procurement propaganda. And the propaganda is repeated and repeated. Clancy uses all the same catch phrases, cliches, and euphemisms that are used by the military itself.

There are no details about the propulsion systems of the ship. It is hardly a secret that the nuclear reactors produce heat that creates steam that drives turbines that run the screws, electrical generators, deck catapults, air conditioning, desalinators, etc. It would have been nice to have this explained if only at a schematic level. The Nimitz class aircraft carriers are insanely fast, with a top speed that may exceed sixty knots, knowledge considered appropriate only for those who can observe it directly with their own spy satellites, such as the Russians and the Chinese.

Have you noticed that military people use the same hackneyed phrases over and over, such as "putting themselves in harm's way every day to save lives and protect American interests." The formula rarely varies. Granted, the military is necessary and much of the work is dangerous, but it is the absolute uniformity of the lanuage used that reveals how little thought is behind it. The generals crow about how few American casualties were suffered in the Gulf War and how unprecedented that is. It isn't unprecedented at all; the absence of casualties on one side is the earmark of every great massacre in history.

Still, aircraft carriers are pretty interesting. Check out the February, 1999 issue of Harper's Magazine for an excellent article about an aircraft carrier without all the propaganda and with a great deal more insight.

I really enjoyed reading this book. The U.S. Navy and the history of the development of its Aircraft Carriers is one of my favorite subjects. I have read a lot about Aircraft Carriers and of their importance in the military. I was also amazed at the large numbers of aircraft and personnel these ships can hold. The personnel includes the ship's officers and crew, Marine guards, pilots, mechanics and medical personnel. The book also includes an interview with the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson and a fictional story at the end. These two items, the interview and the fictional story make this book even more better. This is one of my favorite books and I really enjoyed reading it. I don't think that it was a boring or depressing book at all. It was interesting and exciting. I think that this book is really worth reading. I also think that Tom Clancy should be congratulated for writing a book like this instead of being criticized for it.

This is one of Clancy's best. Not only is it interesting and fun to read, it is very informative and the information is accurate with a few exceptions. These include the misnaming of certain carriers.

As good as this book is, there are many things I simply didn't like about this book. First of all, the book was very idealistic and was more of a propoganda work rather than some kind of reference book. For example, when Clancy explains the air wing layouts, he claims that a certain air wing with less fighters but more striking ability can hit more targets on land and the older 90 plane air wing's land-attack capability was much more limited. He doesn't know that, does he? He never took into consideration that the carriers during the Cold War never actually fought, so it can't be safely said that such and such an air wing is more capable than the other. He also doesn't consider the amount of threats in the world today when talking about the less ships and planes, the more effective. He even says that the current naval aviation structure is much better and is less complicated, when he doesn't even know how effective the previous standings were and how bad things are getting in the world. Also, when talking about the new carriers, he doesn't consider the complications such a program would make and believes carriers are simple "help the needy" machines when they are actually powerful weapons of war. Nor does he ever mention anything about the serious costs that future programs will take and just goes rambling about how cool things will be and how much better things will get. All this, in a way, insults the Navy, because it shows them as a group that simply just buys expensive stuff and doesn't care about their task at hand.

Another thing that was seriously flawed was the explaination of missions and tactics and the fiction. The missions are well shown, but they are not fully explained. They are also described in a way as being"totally effective," which is not true. it takes more than just a carrier to win a war. The tactics are also shown as being 100% effective, also not true. Finally, as someone from India has stated, the fiction was not only short and screwed up, it totally defaces what India is really like. It shows them as ruthess, evil conquistadors, without ever really considering everything to the story. The news report showing the destruction of the Indian ship was totally unreal and propogandic. No such thing would take place, especially when sensitive information is present and would surely have been censored.

Overall, this book was pretty good, but there were many errors and was very biased, propgandic and based on the authors mind. next time, Clancy should write it like a real reference book, accurate to the last detail, unbiased, realistic, or never write non-fiction again. Maybe he jsut didn't know what he was talking about.

Probably a more appropriate title for the book would have been "Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll". All the action takes place amidst a heaping helping of all three "pleasures". King Suckerman is set in the late 70s and really focuses closely on the drug scene in and around Washington DC. To describe it, I would say it's Cheech and Chong meets Reservoir Dogs.

Cheech and Chong because everyone seems to be stoned, getting stoned or looking to get stoned. As a result, I just couldn't take the characters all that seriously, even those with murderous intent. Reservoir Dogs because, at times, the violence was very graphic, the bad guys took no prisoners and the undercurrent of menace was constant.

It's an unusual book in that there really is no obvious lead character. Dimitri Karras is the nearest thing to the lead. He is a deadbeat who gets by dealing pot and playing pickup basketball games.

The pace is frenetic, there's definitely never a dull moment, mayhem abounds and there's a nice little cameo by Nick Stefanos for all the insiders who have read "Nick's Trip". I enjoyed it, it was very entertaining.

This is the third Pelecanos novel that I've read - starting with 'Shame the Devil' and going backwards via 'The Sweet Forever', and each of them have been enjoyable pageturners. It is remarkable how many areas, places, and occurances that Pelecanos describes mirror my stomping grounds and activities during my ascending years. I'm just glad that I didn't go one more street over to shoot some hoop, or purchase some recreationals from that guy who made me just nervous enough to change my mind - because this guy has me totally believing in a world that was there just inches away from my own. I don't get all the musical references, but Pelecanos feeling that there must always be music present, either real or imagined, is just one more thing that allows me to really identify with his stories and characters. One mistake in 'King Suckerman' - you couldn't license a Superbird or Daytona in D.C., but everything else is right on.

"Suckerman" cleverly evokes the late '70s atmosphere while providing psychological insight into the "macho" world of attitude behind small-time criminal mentalities--TV babies, as Matt Dillon called them in "Drugstore Cowboy." Call it a "comedy of Macho manners." I read "Suckerman" right after "The Brothers Rico" by Simenon, and though nothing compares with that, Pelecanos' hip and funny book didn't disappoint. Because of the obvious "Pulp Fiction" connection, I came fully prejudiced and ready to trash it but the man can do more than drop names and tittilate. Harlan Elisson wouldn't recommend just anyone, now, would he? Pelecanos offers much more than pretentious hack-Hollywood post-"P.F." masturbations like "Go" or garbage like "Thursday." The characters he creates are quite real and believable;they existed "back in the day" and still exist in slightly different,fashion-metamorphosed form. The style is deceptively simple, along the lines of masters like Fante or Saroyan and he does have some Bukowski- style "vulgar subtlety" if you look for it. As it is, he makes a hell of a good cheesburger and with a little more work might just turn out rare steaks like Simenon.